CanucksCorner.com Forums

BCExpat wrote: ↑Tue Dec 02, 2025 2:37 pm

JelloPuddingPop wrote: ↑Tue Dec 02, 2025 12:06 pm

BCExpat wrote: ↑Tue Dec 02, 2025 11:25 am Here in Alberta, they will not enforce the gun ban. No one here would ever comply with such inane legislation.

Apparently in Nova Scotia, the test case province, they only managed to get a handful of .22s turned in. Epic failure.

What, in your view, makes it inane?

Other than the obvious taxpayer implications.

The law is inane because taking guns from legal responsible owners does not reduce gun related crimes. The gun laws are targeting the wrong group. They should be doubling down on illegally imported guns and making sentences for gun related crimes much more severe, for example.

I look at a lot of the violence south of the border, especially the school shootings etc. and a larger portion than I would like to see, come from some kid stealing the gun from their parent's household and using it to gun down a lot of their classmates. Peer reviewed study on the characteristics and obtainment methods of firearms used in adolescent school shootings - Canadian school shoots reflect the same.

I get the organized crime, and gang violence portion of this argument, but that isn't what this legislation is about. You can have more than one law regarding gun ownership. Its not a "this way or nothing" type of deal.

Removing Canadian's access to even smaller calibre weapons, that can discharge faster/more than needed - I think, is a good idea. These aren't weapons used to hunt, or provide food for families. They are sport shooting, hobby type arms that, in my opinion, don't really have a place in a home. This coming from someone who owns many guns, and a restricted/non-restricted PAL to legally own them. None are part of this law.

Is there a better way to deal with these? Such as licensing them to be only stored in secured shooting facilities etc., sure, but this is better than nothing.

JPP...setting aside the fact that there is no castle law should I be able to possess a properly registered and contained hand gun in my home to protect my family?

Just a query...not trying to catch anyone up here.

Knowing something of your on hand arsenal I assume the answer is yes?

As far as the rest of the dialogue shooters gonna shoot (the heinous, murdering criminal type I mean) so not sure how keeping a hand gun out of my possession is saving the world here.

I mean not to be overly crass but I guess if someone's gonna murder me I would prefer a gun to a machete or a baseball bat (choice 2 and 3 allegedly)....

You need a permit to own a handgun.
You need a permit to transport to the range, you obtain these from the police. It’s basically an A to B and a B back to A permit.
Then it’s trigger locked and in either a safe or other locked unit. Then behind your locked door.

Legally it wouldn’t be accessed in time to help the situation most likely.
When I had my rural acreage I could have a shotgun available which deletes the absolute need for accuracy.

I sold my handgun to a dealer….(gun dealer)

JelloPuddingPop wrote: ↑Tue Dec 02, 2025 3:00 pm

BCExpat wrote: ↑Tue Dec 02, 2025 2:37 pm

JelloPuddingPop wrote: ↑Tue Dec 02, 2025 12:06 pm

BCExpat wrote: ↑Tue Dec 02, 2025 11:25 am Here in Alberta, they will not enforce the gun ban. No one here would ever comply with such inane legislation.

Apparently in Nova Scotia, the test case province, they only managed to get a handful of .22s turned in. Epic failure.

What, in your view, makes it inane?

Other than the obvious taxpayer implications.

The law is inane because taking guns from legal responsible owners does not reduce gun related crimes. The gun laws are targeting the wrong group. They should be doubling down on illegally imported guns and making sentences for gun related crimes much more severe, for example.

I look at a lot of the violence south of the border, especially the school shootings etc. and a larger portion than I would like to see, come from some kid stealing the gun from their parent's household and using it to gun down a lot of their classmates. Peer reviewed study on the characteristics and obtainment methods of firearms used in adolescent school shootings - Canadian school shoots reflect the same.

I get the organized crime, and gang violence portion of this argument, but that isn't what this legislation is about. You can have more than one law regarding gun ownership. Its not a "this way or nothing" type of deal.

Removing Canadian's access to even smaller calibre weapons, that can discharge faster/more than needed - I think, is a good idea. These aren't weapons used to hunt, or provide food for families. They are sport shooting, hobby type arms that, in my opinion, don't really have a place in a home. This coming from someone who owns many guns, and a restricted/non-restricted PAL to legally own them. None are part of this law.

Is there a better way to deal with these? Such as licensing them to be only stored in secured shooting facilities etc., sure, but this is better than nothing.

I appreciate that you said it that way. Your opinion.....and those are like assholes, everyone has one. The idea of a free society is that each person is responsible of their own actions and lives with the consequences of them. It also means the right to decide what does and doesn't belong in their own home.

Sport shooting is a legit thing, it should be a right just like it is a right to go and play golf or tennis. With that right should come increased responsibility and regulation due to the increased risk involved with owning the equipment. And I do agree, the equipment is not exactly a pair of Bauer's, a Sher-Wood, and some Cooper-alls, there is proven risk of the owner of the firearm being too loose with the securing of it and a family member taking it out and going ape-shit.

Maybe the compromise is (and I'm just spit-balling here) that if you want to own the types of weapon you are referencing those weapons cannot be stored on the local residence but instead must be stored in a secure facility at a gun club or range.

Side note: The other part of this argument is that there should be absolutely zero double standards. Indigenous people should be under the same gun laws and the rest of the country. If they want to own weapons that the government cannot regulate for the purposes of their ancestral hunting rites/rights, then they need to make those weapons themselves the same way their ancestors did.

rats19 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 02, 2025 4:01 pm When I had my rural acreage I could have a shotgun available which deletes the absolute need for accuracy.

Rats, would similar rules as for handguns apply to a shotgun so that you would be able to access it quickly enough to use for defense in, say, a home invasion scenario? Just asking.

I don't know anything about guns, though I'm thinking of getting one primarily for shooting farm animals for euthanasia or to processing. I also have a good friend who wants me to go hunting with him as he's into covering miles and tracking animals, and I'm an avid off-trail hiker. Says I would enjoy it.

rats19 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 02, 2025 4:01 pm I sold my handgun to a dealer….(gun dealer)

Appreciate the clarification there rats.

5thhorseman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 02, 2025 4:10 pm

rats19 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 02, 2025 4:01 pm When I had my rural acreage I could have a shotgun available which deletes the absolute need for accuracy.

Rats, would similar rules as for handguns apply to a shotgun so that you would be able to access it quickly enough to use for defense in, say, a home invasion scenario? Just asking.

I don't know anything about guns, though I'm thinking of getting one primarily for shooting farm animals for euthanasia or to processing. I also have a good friend who wants me to go hunting with him as he's into covering miles and tracking animals, and I'm an avid off-trail hiker. Says I would enjoy it.

Not 100% sure 5th but I think it was different rules.

donlever wrote: ↑Tue Dec 02, 2025 3:50 pm JPP...setting aside the fact that there is no castle law should I be able to possess a properly registered and contained hand gun in my home to protect my family?

I get asked this question a lot at the range when shootin' the shit. Usually by rookies, or people new to guns as a whole.

Ask anyone in the military, or police or really anyone who spends a lot of time around firearms, and to a person, they will tell you a pistol is about the worst home defense weapon you can choose. Small caliber, .22 etc, won't stop someone efficiently, and high calibre ones are as dangerous to the intruder as to your family or dog or neighbours. I have a Grizzly Arms 870 knockoff as mine. #6, 00 and slug loaded in that order.

donlever wrote: ↑Tue Dec 02, 2025 3:50 pm As far as the rest of the dialogue shooters gonna shoot (the heinous, murdering criminal type I mean) so not sure how keeping a hand gun out of my possession is saving the world here.

I mean not to be overly crass but I guess if someone's gonna murder me I would prefer a gun to a machete or a baseball bat (choice 2 and 3 allegedly)....

Just as a point of note. This legislation isn't going after hand guns already owned. Just a proposed freeze on new ones.

Mëds wrote: ↑Tue Dec 02, 2025 4:07 pm I appreciate that you said it that way. Your opinion.....and those are like assholes, everyone has one. The idea of a free society is that each person is responsible of their own actions and lives with the consequences of them. It also means the right to decide what does and doesn't belong in their own home.

Not at all true.

There are many laws that say you can't, for example, have a nuclear bomb in your house Mëds. It is not a free society, as there are plenty of laws that dictate what you can and can't do in your home. Meth labs. Elephants.

Exaggerated for sure. But guns that can kill me and all my friends at a concert quickly should be on that list.

Mëds wrote: ↑Tue Dec 02, 2025 4:07 pm Sport shooting is a legit thing, it should be a right just like it is a right to go and play golf or tennis. With that right should come increased responsibility and regulation due to the increased risk involved with owning the equipment. And I do agree, the equipment is not exactly a pair of Bauer's, a Sher-Wood, and some Cooper-alls, there is proven risk of the owner of the firearm being too loose with the securing of it and a family member taking it out and going ape-shit.

I do think there should be harder laws on this too. Securing and storing weapons etc. Punishing infractions with jail time. Not fines.

Mëds wrote: ↑Tue Dec 02, 2025 4:07 pm Maybe the compromise is (and I'm just spit-balling here) that if you want to own the types of weapon you are referencing those weapons cannot be stored on the local residence but instead must be stored in a secure facility at a gun club or range.

As I said.

Mëds wrote: ↑Tue Dec 02, 2025 4:07 pm Side note: The other part of this argument is that there should be absolutely zero double standards. Indigenous people should be under the same gun laws and the rest of the country. If they want to own weapons that the government cannot regulate for the purposes of their ancestral hunting rites/rights, then they need to make those weapons themselves the same way their ancestors did.

Not eleven going to touch that one. Geez.

5thhorseman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 02, 2025 4:10 pm

rats19 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 02, 2025 4:01 pm When I had my rural acreage I could have a shotgun available which deletes the absolute need for accuracy.

Rats, would similar rules as for handguns apply to a shotgun so that you would be able to access it quickly enough to use for defense in, say, a home invasion scenario? Just asking.

I don't know anything about guns, though I'm thinking of getting one primarily for shooting farm animals for euthanasia or to processing. I also have a good friend who wants me to go hunting with him as he's into covering miles and tracking animals, and I'm an avid off-trail hiker. Says I would enjoy it.

Handguns are restricted firearms, and are quite strictly regulated. You can't just leave them in a drawer by your bed unsecured.

Shotguns (mostly) are non-restricted, so you can have an unloaded shotgun, with a trigger lock, or similarly secured. A much better choice to have for that purpose. Especially for you, with kids/pets in the house. A low velocity shell won't go through a wall if you miss your target and hit your dog.

Thanks JPP.

As is likely obvious I know zero about guns and don't worry myself about the subject in any way.

Alberta can bounce. Take Quebec with them. Don't let the door hit yourself on the ass on the way out.

Can the rest of the country decide and sign a petition if we want these provinces? That's the real question. Beat it.

We're sending a pipeline through your mountains whether you like it or not!

In other, not firearm-related news, Bill C9 is turning into some fun.

Once again rather than doing the sane thing and outlining hard definitions of what hate speech is, the Liberals and Bloc are uniting to push this one through with language that would give rather broad discretion for interpretation at the level of the courts and removing the protection of religious belief. It would also allow the police to charge and arrest based upon accusation alone.

You can't bear arms to defend your own home and family.

You may or may not have the freedom to believe whatever faith you subscribe to.....depending upon the judge and the officer of the day.

What a great time to be Canadian.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qb3xtHaDiA

Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Tue Dec 02, 2025 8:21 pm Alberta can bounce. Take Quebec with them. Don't let the door hit yourself on the ass on the way out.

Can the rest of the country decide and sign a petition if we want these provinces? That's the real question. Beat it.

Maybe BC should separate. Become its own thing. Alberta and Saskatchewan can merge and jointly secede.

Ontario can finally be the center of their own universe.

Quebec can do whatever the hell they want.

The maritimes will do whatever the maritimes will do.

The Territories can decide who they want to go with, if anyone actually wants them.